Personalisation of care and support has been a great breakthrough, and it retains broad political and sector support. But there's a danger of it being badly – and unnecessarily – damaged in these austere times.

The development of personalisation in social care is part of a wider shift in our society towards including all people as fully equal citizens. This is long overdue, has had to be fought for, and is far from complete. It has emerged primarily from the efforts and struggles of disabled and older people, with support from their progressive allies in public services.

Over many years, disabled people worked out how to achieve independence and avoid services that trap them in dependency and limited lives – by demanding direct payments and personalised support. They had to fight to take charge, often achieving this despite a service system that struggled to shift away from its institutional roots. In recent years, the social care policy of successive governments has started to reflect people's aspirations to direct their own lives, in particular through the introduction of personal budgets and an expectation of tailored support. While this is to be welcomed, it does not of itself transform the way people experience care and support. This big change to culture and practice is still in its relatively early stages in many areas.

In a period of severe resource pressures, and with worrying reports of significant budget cuts in disability and older people's services in some areas, we wait and hope for a funding solution from the government's Dilnot commission, which is due to report in the summer

In the meantime, there is a high risk of distraction from, and perversion of, the things that make personalisation real. In some places we see crude cuts being justified in its name, or restrictions on the use of personal budgets, which make no financial sense yet seriously hinder opportunities for creativity and efficiency. Where rigid local rules only allow individual budgets to be spent on "personal care", this means people can't make their money work harder by, for example, supporting themselves into work.

As a result, some people start to see personalisation as part of the problem rather than central to the solution. It's vital that councils and providers demonstrate the difference being made and share the results with local people. Evaluation carried out by In Control has shown an improvement in quality of life for two-thirds of people with a personal budget, and dignity in care improved for more than half. Further findings from a national personal budget survey will also be available soon, giving a detailed picture of their impact.

The Think Local, Act Personal Partnership is launched this week, a coalition of more than 30 organisations working in social care. It argues that when resources are tight, they have to be used especially well. This means a preventive approach. It also means personal budgets delivered without unnecessary bureaucracy so that people can target resources, based on their expertise in their own needs and lives. At times like this we mustn't take our eyes off the prize for which people have fought for so hard and so long. Instead, let's work, argue, influence and fight for true personalisation.• Martin Routledge led the Department of Health personalisation delivery team. He is now head of operations for In Control.